enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, Judge Zambrano
allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to draft the Ecuadorian
judgment. Although the Ecuadorian judgment was signed
by Judge Zambrano, the decision was not his own. It was
ghostwritten by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Accordingly, Chevron maintains that the Ecuadorian judgment was not the
decision of an impartial judge or the product of a fair and
X. The Ecuador Judgment Cannot be Recognized or Enforced
in Ontario — This section sets out the following reasons
why Chevron submits that the Ecuadorian judgment cannot be enforced against it in Ontario.
— The Ecuador court did not have jurisdiction over
Chevron because Chevron has no real or substantial
connection to the jurisdiction or the subject matter of
the claim, it had no involvement in the events leading
to the Ecuadorian judgment, it is a corporate entity
separate from Texaco and TexPet, and it did not attorn
to the jurisdiction of the Ecuador court.
— The EMA, the legislation upon which the Ecuadorian
judgment is based, was enacted and retroactively
applied to improperly contrive a claim against Chevron. As such, it is contrary to Canadian public policy
and repugnant to Canadian concepts of justice. Further, the Ecuador court’s decision not to dismiss the
claim against Chevron on the basis of the 1995 settlement agreement is also contrary to Canadian public
policy because Chevron is entitled to rely upon the
release provided to TexPet pursuant to the 1995 settlement agreement.
— The enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment against
Chevron would constitute a violation of the ROE’s
obligations under international law and would therefore offend Canadian public policy. Chevron submits
that the ROE is subject to a decision of an arbitral tribunal pursuant to the Bilateral Investment Treaty
(the “BIT”) between the United States and the ROE
that recognizes the enforceability of the 1995 settlement agreement and requires that the ROE suspend
and prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment.
— The Ecuador court process was contrary to Canada’s
concept of natural justice because Chevron was denied